Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
SHOCK SENEDD ELECTION NEWS! 🚨
NOT ALL VOTERS DESERVE REPRESENTATION SAYS CANDIDATE
If you’re a Welsh voter making up your mind who should represent your interests in the Senedd, would you vote for a candidate who says they’ll only represent their “community”, - and who says that doesn’t mean you?
Wherever you are in Wales, before you choose your representative, make sure they’re prepared to represent YOU.
Read on ….
1/
NOT ALL VOTERS DESERVE REPRESENTATION SAYS CANDIDATE
If you’re a Welsh voter making up your mind who should represent your interests in the Senedd, would you vote for a candidate who says they’ll only represent their “community”, - and who says that doesn’t mean you?
Wherever you are in Wales, before you choose your representative, make sure they’re prepared to represent YOU.
Read on ….
1/
Women in every Senedd constituency have written to all the candidates seeking to represent them.
They asked for a simple yes/no response to five key questions raised by Wales WRN.
These are all common-sense questions which relate to the rights of women and girls.
2/
They asked for a simple yes/no response to five key questions raised by Wales WRN.
These are all common-sense questions which relate to the rights of women and girls.
2/
Easy questions, - but this Caerdydd Penarth constituent received a REFUSAL TO ANSWER them.
She was not deterred...
3/
She was not deterred...
3/
4/20 is a day dedicated to making memories hazy.
But support chatbots should be held to a higher standard.
Introducing Greater, an in-browser local LLM that is private by default and trained on whatever knowledge you give it.
But support chatbots should be held to a higher standard.
Introducing Greater, an in-browser local LLM that is private by default and trained on whatever knowledge you give it.
I originally built this for Blockstream during the interview process. That bot is still there, but I've extended it. You can check out the demo here:
greater.pink
greater.pink
For the Bitcoin bot, I trained it on a variety of Blockstream's articles, the Simplicity language, and some of their other products.
I've also trained it (partially) on Bitcoin Core vs Knots.
I've also trained it (partially) on Bitcoin Core vs Knots.
Starmer’s hesitant performance today left many important questions unanswered:
Why did he ignore the advice of his then cabinet secretary, Simon Case, in November 2024 to vet Mandelson before appointing? It would seem wise advice given Mandelson’s dodgy past/reputation.
Yet Starmer’s answer is evasive. He says Case’s successor, Chris Wormald concluded in a review in September 2025 that vetting after appointment is ‘normal/usual’.
But Starmer obviously didn’t have that review when he rejected Case, Wormald just says it was normal, not necessarily right — and since Wormald succeeded Case amid Mandelson’s appointment and went along with the Starmer timeline, he was hardly likely to contradict himself in a subsequent review.
So, again, why did Starmer reject Case’s sound advice? If he had accepted it he wouldn’t be in his current pickle /1
Why did he ignore the advice of his then cabinet secretary, Simon Case, in November 2024 to vet Mandelson before appointing? It would seem wise advice given Mandelson’s dodgy past/reputation.
Yet Starmer’s answer is evasive. He says Case’s successor, Chris Wormald concluded in a review in September 2025 that vetting after appointment is ‘normal/usual’.
But Starmer obviously didn’t have that review when he rejected Case, Wormald just says it was normal, not necessarily right — and since Wormald succeeded Case amid Mandelson’s appointment and went along with the Starmer timeline, he was hardly likely to contradict himself in a subsequent review.
So, again, why did Starmer reject Case’s sound advice? If he had accepted it he wouldn’t be in his current pickle /1
Why was Starmer so sure the vetting process had included Mandelson’s connection with the unspeakable Epstein if he claims not to have seen the vetting report? He now claims he was referring to the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which preceded the security vetting and which he had seen. But he was asked specifically at the time about the security vetting work and Epstein. Why was he again evasive? /2
On that due diligence report, which highlighted Mandelson’s relations with dodgy Russian and Chinese clients, why did Starmer not take any of that more seriously. Sure these connections alone would have indicated vetting before appointing? Why didn’t he see it that way? Did he not think that Mandelson’s serving on the board of a Russian company riddled with Kremlin spies, for example, was grounds alone for caution? Why was he totally unforthcoming when asked about Sistema (the Russian company)? /3
I picked up some interface cards at VCF East, and also found a CD-ROM drive on the free pile. Let's give them a test! We'll use one of my 486 DX2/66 systems. Let's go! Time for a 🧵
We'll start out with the CD-ROM. Looks like this was in a Compaq originally (allegedly a Presario). It's a model CR-581-KCQ, which I think makes it a 4X Panasonic drive. Anyway, I popped in my GCW Companion CD, and the drive passed! Hooray!!
Next we have a DTC 2278E VLB controller. I have one of these, but the HDD pins are broken. It still works, but for $5 I was glad to have another 😂. I booted up Windows 98, I have a mouse, the HDD works, and the FDD works, calling it good!
‘The absolute edge of precedent’: FERC prepares to take on data centers via @politico
1/3politi.co/4eipupl
1/3politi.co/4eipupl
Pre-empting the states in a massive federal agency power grab is not what people expected from a Republican administration. 2/3
Informative article in Politico by A.J. Camacho. 3/3
Matt seems fundamentally ignorant of a bunch of stuff that's gone on since 2009.
Netanyahu accepted the Two-State Solution in 2009 in his famous Bar-Ilan Speech.
It was the conclusion of the Obama Administration and of Hussein Agha (Abbas's top informal negotiator) that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sunk talks in 2014 as soon as Netanyahu was getting really flexible.
Under the 2013 Molcho-Agha Framework for negotiations, Netanyahu agreed to final status talks based on the following principles:
[1] "Palestine" would be "an independent and sovereign state in a sustainable territory which will correspond to the size of the territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan before the 4th of June 1967,”
[2] “[A]ny solution must take into account the historical, social, cultural and emotional connections of the two peoples to the city, as well as protect the holy sites.”
[3] "There will be a complete withdrawal in stages of Israeli forces from the territory of Palestine. The last Israeli forces will evacuate when the final stage of the agreement comes into effect"
[4] "Israelis who choose to remain in their homes in the state of Palestine will live under Palestinian law"
[5] Some sort of limited Palestinian 'right of return' on an individualized basis would be up for future discussion
Both sides reserved the right to oppose certain clauses, but as reported Netanyahu accepted what his top negotiator put together.
This basically lines up with the book "The Last Palestinian" reporting that Netanyahu told Obama and Kerry that he could agree to evacuate large parts of the West Bank so that a Palestinian State could be established, so long as he was able to do it slowly and gradually over a number of years (perhaps up to a decade). The main reason the Obama Administration was unhappy with this was domestic American politics (Obama wanting credit). It was after this that Kerry got the Molcho-Agha channel going for framework negotiations.
And "The Last Palestinian" (a biography of Mahmoud Abbas) says that Kerry got Netanyahu to agree in 2013 that "[t]he new secure and recognized border between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutual agreed land swaps." Where Netanyahu was unwilling to budge was on a continued IDF presence in the Jordan Valley for 10 to 15 years and authority to conduct raids and operations against terrorism there. Netanyahu was also unwilling to accept a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, though he was willing to accept Palestinian "aspirations" regarding East Jerusalem, and [separate from the book the Last Palestinian" Netanyahu agreed to the Palestinians getting certain East Jerusalem neighborhoods like Shuafat, Beit Hanina, and Kafr Aqab. And Netanyahu accepted a limited Palestinian right of return to Israel.
According to the Last Palestinian, Obama took the Kerry framework and added express language about a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem in order to satisfy the Palestinians. Abbas balked, asked for more time to think, and then never responded.
...
Also reported from the period is that Netanyahu instructed aides to draft plans to dismantle West Bank settlements and isolated settlements like Yitzhar.
On the Jordan Valley specifically, Moshe Ya'alon (Deputy Prime Minister, later Defense Minister) said as early as 2011 that Netanyahu was looking at dismantling Jordan Valley settlements as part of a final status agreement. He later said that Netanyahu ordered him to draft plans to dismantle the settlements.
And peace negotiator Yossi Beilin (Labor, Peace Camp, big Oslo process guy; an architect of the Geneva Initiative which @mattyglesias has thought was a good idea) in 2013 said that even in the absence of a final status agreement, Netanyahu was willing to accept a Palestinian State on provisional borders. Beilin was skeptical that Netanyahu or Abbas were willing to pay the price of what would be required for full peace, but he said he'd heard Netanyahu himself say that he was ready to establish a provisional border with the Palestinians.
...
In 2015 after elections Netanyahu said he accepted the general idea of the Arab Peace Initiative (agreement with Moderate Arab States, though resistant on ideas of Palestinian return and ceding the Golan specifically). He said he told the Arab States then that he was not opposed to a demilitarized Palestinian State in principle if it recognized Israel as the nation state of the Jews alongside Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinians and the Palestinians put up with the IDF remaining in parts of the West Bank "for an extended period of time".
In 2017, the Washington Post reported that Netanyahu told the incoming Trump Administration that he still favored the two state solution, but believed that the Palestinians were not ready for a deal.
Netanyahu accepted the 2020 Trump-Kushner Plan, for what that's worth. That involved a Palestinian State, albeit a pretty ugly one. But according to Jared Kushner, the proposal was put out as a basis for negotiations in order to give Abbas room to make a bunch of demands to ask for more ("meat on the bone", as Kushner characterized it).
Yair Lapid as the sitting Prime Minister in 2022 said at the United Nations that he accepted a Two State Solution.
In early 2023 Netanyahu said on the Lex Friedman Podcast that he'd accept a Palestinian State if he didn't really have to call it one
Friedman interview at 45:55 - "So people say, ah, but it's not a perfect state. I say, okay, call it what you will ... call it, I don't know, limited sovereignty, call it autonomy plus, call it whatever you want to call it, but that's the reality."
Friedman interview at 46:15 -
"Lex: So a two state solution where Israel controls the security of the entire region."
"Netanyahu: We don't call it quite that. I mean there are different names. But the idea is yes, Israel controls security [in] the entire area ... It's this tiny area between the Jordan River and the Sea."
January 18, 2024. Reuters wrote Netanyahu said "I clarify that in any arrangement in the foreseeable future, with an accord or without an accord, Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River. That's a necessary condition. It clashes with the principle of sovereignty but what can you do."
January 19, 2024. Reuters wrote "Biden said Netanyahu [on their call] was not opposed to all two-state solutions, and there were a number of types possible, noting that some United Nations members do not have military forces."
...
Netanyahu in accepting the Trump Plan in 2025 agreed to points 9, 18, 19, and 20, which had a bunch of references to an eventual Palestinian State once Gaza was rebuilt and the Palestinian Authority completed a reform program.
This was a pretty easy thing for him to do though because he fundamentally thinks the Palestinian Authority is too corrupt and dysfunctional to adopt and implement an institutional reform program.
Netanyahu accepted the Two-State Solution in 2009 in his famous Bar-Ilan Speech.
It was the conclusion of the Obama Administration and of Hussein Agha (Abbas's top informal negotiator) that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sunk talks in 2014 as soon as Netanyahu was getting really flexible.
Under the 2013 Molcho-Agha Framework for negotiations, Netanyahu agreed to final status talks based on the following principles:
[1] "Palestine" would be "an independent and sovereign state in a sustainable territory which will correspond to the size of the territory controlled by Egypt and Jordan before the 4th of June 1967,”
[2] “[A]ny solution must take into account the historical, social, cultural and emotional connections of the two peoples to the city, as well as protect the holy sites.”
[3] "There will be a complete withdrawal in stages of Israeli forces from the territory of Palestine. The last Israeli forces will evacuate when the final stage of the agreement comes into effect"
[4] "Israelis who choose to remain in their homes in the state of Palestine will live under Palestinian law"
[5] Some sort of limited Palestinian 'right of return' on an individualized basis would be up for future discussion
Both sides reserved the right to oppose certain clauses, but as reported Netanyahu accepted what his top negotiator put together.
This basically lines up with the book "The Last Palestinian" reporting that Netanyahu told Obama and Kerry that he could agree to evacuate large parts of the West Bank so that a Palestinian State could be established, so long as he was able to do it slowly and gradually over a number of years (perhaps up to a decade). The main reason the Obama Administration was unhappy with this was domestic American politics (Obama wanting credit). It was after this that Kerry got the Molcho-Agha channel going for framework negotiations.
And "The Last Palestinian" (a biography of Mahmoud Abbas) says that Kerry got Netanyahu to agree in 2013 that "[t]he new secure and recognized border between Israel and Palestine will be negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutual agreed land swaps." Where Netanyahu was unwilling to budge was on a continued IDF presence in the Jordan Valley for 10 to 15 years and authority to conduct raids and operations against terrorism there. Netanyahu was also unwilling to accept a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, though he was willing to accept Palestinian "aspirations" regarding East Jerusalem, and [separate from the book the Last Palestinian" Netanyahu agreed to the Palestinians getting certain East Jerusalem neighborhoods like Shuafat, Beit Hanina, and Kafr Aqab. And Netanyahu accepted a limited Palestinian right of return to Israel.
According to the Last Palestinian, Obama took the Kerry framework and added express language about a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem in order to satisfy the Palestinians. Abbas balked, asked for more time to think, and then never responded.
...
Also reported from the period is that Netanyahu instructed aides to draft plans to dismantle West Bank settlements and isolated settlements like Yitzhar.
On the Jordan Valley specifically, Moshe Ya'alon (Deputy Prime Minister, later Defense Minister) said as early as 2011 that Netanyahu was looking at dismantling Jordan Valley settlements as part of a final status agreement. He later said that Netanyahu ordered him to draft plans to dismantle the settlements.
And peace negotiator Yossi Beilin (Labor, Peace Camp, big Oslo process guy; an architect of the Geneva Initiative which @mattyglesias has thought was a good idea) in 2013 said that even in the absence of a final status agreement, Netanyahu was willing to accept a Palestinian State on provisional borders. Beilin was skeptical that Netanyahu or Abbas were willing to pay the price of what would be required for full peace, but he said he'd heard Netanyahu himself say that he was ready to establish a provisional border with the Palestinians.
...
In 2015 after elections Netanyahu said he accepted the general idea of the Arab Peace Initiative (agreement with Moderate Arab States, though resistant on ideas of Palestinian return and ceding the Golan specifically). He said he told the Arab States then that he was not opposed to a demilitarized Palestinian State in principle if it recognized Israel as the nation state of the Jews alongside Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinians and the Palestinians put up with the IDF remaining in parts of the West Bank "for an extended period of time".
In 2017, the Washington Post reported that Netanyahu told the incoming Trump Administration that he still favored the two state solution, but believed that the Palestinians were not ready for a deal.
Netanyahu accepted the 2020 Trump-Kushner Plan, for what that's worth. That involved a Palestinian State, albeit a pretty ugly one. But according to Jared Kushner, the proposal was put out as a basis for negotiations in order to give Abbas room to make a bunch of demands to ask for more ("meat on the bone", as Kushner characterized it).
Yair Lapid as the sitting Prime Minister in 2022 said at the United Nations that he accepted a Two State Solution.
In early 2023 Netanyahu said on the Lex Friedman Podcast that he'd accept a Palestinian State if he didn't really have to call it one
Friedman interview at 45:55 - "So people say, ah, but it's not a perfect state. I say, okay, call it what you will ... call it, I don't know, limited sovereignty, call it autonomy plus, call it whatever you want to call it, but that's the reality."
Friedman interview at 46:15 -
"Lex: So a two state solution where Israel controls the security of the entire region."
"Netanyahu: We don't call it quite that. I mean there are different names. But the idea is yes, Israel controls security [in] the entire area ... It's this tiny area between the Jordan River and the Sea."
January 18, 2024. Reuters wrote Netanyahu said "I clarify that in any arrangement in the foreseeable future, with an accord or without an accord, Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River. That's a necessary condition. It clashes with the principle of sovereignty but what can you do."
January 19, 2024. Reuters wrote "Biden said Netanyahu [on their call] was not opposed to all two-state solutions, and there were a number of types possible, noting that some United Nations members do not have military forces."
...
Netanyahu in accepting the Trump Plan in 2025 agreed to points 9, 18, 19, and 20, which had a bunch of references to an eventual Palestinian State once Gaza was rebuilt and the Palestinian Authority completed a reform program.
This was a pretty easy thing for him to do though because he fundamentally thinks the Palestinian Authority is too corrupt and dysfunctional to adopt and implement an institutional reform program.
@havivrettiggur
@RachelGur
@noam_dworman
@RachelGur
@noam_dworman
@havivrettiggur @RachelGur @noam_dworman @SethAMandel
🚨Today, I sent a letter to @SecMullinDHS urging him to terminate OPT, STEM-OPT, and CPT.
The story of these programs is simple: Big Tech chose to lobby the deep state for foreign labor rather than pay fair wages to Americans.
Here's how it happened. 🧵
The story of these programs is simple: Big Tech chose to lobby the deep state for foreign labor rather than pay fair wages to Americans.
Here's how it happened. 🧵
Since 1947, government programs have existed to provide foreign students with opportunities to have brief internship-like experiences.
But in 1992, the Bush administration quietly transformed those programs into the modern OPT, allowing foreigners to stay in the US and work for a full year.
But in 1992, the Bush administration quietly transformed those programs into the modern OPT, allowing foreigners to stay in the US and work for a full year.
That wasn’t enough.
By 2007, the H-1B visa cap was limiting Microsoft’s access to cheap foreign labor.
At a dinner party in 2007, a Microsoft lobbyist proposed to DHS Secretary Chertoff that the H-1B problem could be circumvented by extending OPT's duration.
By 2007, the H-1B visa cap was limiting Microsoft’s access to cheap foreign labor.
At a dinner party in 2007, a Microsoft lobbyist proposed to DHS Secretary Chertoff that the H-1B problem could be circumvented by extending OPT's duration.
🚨NEW REPORT: ACTBLUE EMPLOYEES TAKE THE FIFTH WHEN ASKED ABOUT FOREIGN FRAUD AND WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION AT THE DEMOCRAT DONATION PLATFORM
🧵THREAD:
🧵THREAD:
@JudiciaryGOP, @GOPoversight, and @HouseAdmin have been investigating fraud on ActBlue and the potential for foreign interference in our elections.
Last year, we found that ActBlue, the left’s leading online fundraising platform, weakened its fraud-prevention standards ahead of the 2024 election—even as the company knew about significant attempted fraud on the platform.
Read more here: x.com/JudiciaryGOP/s…
Last year, we found that ActBlue, the left’s leading online fundraising platform, weakened its fraud-prevention standards ahead of the 2024 election—even as the company knew about significant attempted fraud on the platform.
Read more here: x.com/JudiciaryGOP/s…
New reporting has confirmed our findings: ActBlue accepts illegal foreign donations en masse.
ActBlue tried to cover this up by misleading and withholding documents from Congress.
But it didn’t work.
ActBlue tried to cover this up by misleading and withholding documents from Congress.
But it didn’t work.
NZ Govt took a huge bet on fossil fuels. NZ was spending $8 billion/yr importing fossil fuels, and now the global fuel crisis is going to make it worse. Betting on fossil fuels turned out to be a losing bet for NZ. This is the 15 point policy record of 2 years of the NZ Govt:
1. Removed the Clean Car Discount, which supported sales of EVs and low emissions vehicles and disincentivized sales of high fuel consumption vehicles. This removal resulted in a collapse of EV sales.
2. Weakened the Clean Car Standard, which incentivized importers to sell more fuel efficient vehicles and penalised them for selling more high fuel consumption vehicles. This weakening led to an increase in sales of heavy fuel inefficient vehicles;
A useful Germany-based study looked at what happened after seasonal COVID vaccination moved into routine care. It used real-world insurance data to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated adults during the 2023/24 autumn-winter period🧵
The main pattern was consistent. Vaccinated people had fewer severe outcomes. COVID-related hospitalization was lower. Respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations were also lower. New long COVID diagnoses were lower too.
The follow-up period ran for up to 121 days, essentially covering 1 December 2023 to 31 March 2024. So the paper is really about short-term seasonal impact, not long-term durability over many more months.
Day 51 of the Hormuz crisis.
Brent $94. Consensus: "priced in."
My read: the biggest macro dislocation of 2026 is loading — and positioning is brutally wrong.
Here's what happens in the next 48 hours 🧵
Brent $94. Consensus: "priced in."
My read: the biggest macro dislocation of 2026 is loading — and positioning is brutally wrong.
Here's what happens in the next 48 hours 🧵
The IMF warned this week: "We're not going back to the Goldilocks scenario." ( CNBC )
Translation: even with a deal, the inflation premium is structural.
13M bpd shut-in. 500M+ barrels of cumulative lost supply. CNBC A deal tomorrow still needs months to clear the backlog.
Translation: even with a deal, the inflation premium is structural.
13M bpd shut-in. 500M+ barrels of cumulative lost supply. CNBC A deal tomorrow still needs months to clear the backlog.
Watch this week's tape:
Thu: Brent rips to $99
Fri: Iran says "strait open" → −10% to $90
Sat: Iran reverses → +6.5%
Sun: USS Spruance seizes the Touska
Mon: Trump floats new talks → −4%
Every headline = a scalp. This is a regime, not a trend.
Thu: Brent rips to $99
Fri: Iran says "strait open" → −10% to $90
Sat: Iran reverses → +6.5%
Sun: USS Spruance seizes the Touska
Mon: Trump floats new talks → −4%
Every headline = a scalp. This is a regime, not a trend.
ALERT: New House legislation would block Trump Admin from vacating Jan 6 seditious conspiracy cases
Bill would change rules of crim. procedure to “clarify federal judges have the authority to accept or reject the govt’s motion to dismiss ‘in the interests of justice”
(MORE)
Bill would change rules of crim. procedure to “clarify federal judges have the authority to accept or reject the govt’s motion to dismiss ‘in the interests of justice”
(MORE)
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) is the sponsor
Scanlon argues, “Reforming Rule 48a to ensure that federal judges have appropriate oversight over problematic prosecutorial decisions will reinforce an important check and balance to ensure the integrity of our justice system"
(MORE)
Scanlon argues, “Reforming Rule 48a to ensure that federal judges have appropriate oversight over problematic prosecutorial decisions will reinforce an important check and balance to ensure the integrity of our justice system"
(MORE)
Bill is a deep, deep longshot in this Congress, but raises the issue for Democrats: Trump’s attempt to whitewash January 6th are not politically popular with broad swaths of Americans and are a risk to the safety of future elections (MORE)
